Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Kaushal Kishore Gautam & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 September, 2010

Author: Kishore K. Mandal

Bench: Kishore K. Mandal

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CR. REV. No.220 of 2009

           1. KAUSHAL KISHORE GAUTAM, SON OF BIRENDRA PRASAD
              SINGH
           2. BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJDEO SINGH
           3. SHYAMA DEVI, WIFE OF BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH
           4. DABLU KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH
           5. PRITEE KUMARI DAUGHTER OF BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH
           6. PINKI KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH
           ALL R/O- VILLAGE/MOHALLA PURANI GUDARI, WARD NO. 9, P.S.-
           BETTIAN (TOWN), DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH
                                           Versus
            1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
            2. PRIYANKA DEVI, WIFE OF KAUSHAL KISHORE GAUTAM AND
               DAUGHTER OF MAHADEO MISHRA, R/O- MOHALLA PURANI
               GUDARI, WARD NO. 9, P.S.- BETTIAN (TOWN), DISTRICT- WEST
               CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH.
               AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE - BELWA, P.S.- BETTIAH
               (MUFFASIL), DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH
                                         -----------

2   28.09.2010

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2008 passed on Cr. Revision no. 192 of 2008 whereby the revision preferred by the complainant has been disposed of in the following manner:

"Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, when the complaint has been filed with an allegation regarding committing cruelty for demand of further dowry and etc and the complainant supported the aforesaid version of the complaint petition in her S.A. and two other witnesses Binod Kr. Rai and Mahadeo Missir also supported the aforesaid version of the complainant it means that there are sufficient materials for proceeding the case and this fact has not been considered by the learned court below in the impugned order and hence the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned court below for further enquiry, as such this revision application is allowed. "

Since the matter has been remitted for fresh inquiry, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction 2 conferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.

The application lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

( Kishore K. Mandal, J. ) pkj